Is Sola Scriptura a Sola Scriptura doctrine?

[Scott1]

There are plenty of Biblical examples of abuses of God given authority throughout the Bible.

That does not come close to answering my question....

Godly basis of human authority is not an exemtion from human abuse or criticism of that abuse.

Ok...... I must be missing the answer.... I just want to know what infallible source of authority informed you that your scripture was an infallible source of authority.

Let me ask you this? would you agree that the establishment of the U.S.A was a violation of Rom 13:1-2 in refference to the British government?

Sorry... don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Cannon was being established long before formal Catholicism existed (1 Pet 3:15-16)

So the canon was in place before any reference to a universal church?

What year did this happen?

and the formal "ecumenical councils" that followed were merely formal recognitions for clarification no more as far as that was concerned.

"formal recognitions" for which group of Christians? Eastern? Western? All?

A simple "yes" from me will have to do for now

So for clarification:

What year was your bible canon completed?

What year was the Christian faith started?

What year did the Catholic church start?

What year did the group you consider yourself a member of today start?

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I just want to know what infallible source of authority informed you that your scripture was an infallible source of authority.

silly me. Being as how you put it that way. The only "infallible" source I can think of is God. Are you satisfied now?

Sorry... don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No clue about how the country you currently reside was established,eh? At least you can't say your not a part of the majority.

So the canon was in place before any reference to a universal church?

What year did this happen?

does it really matter?! You're ignoring the fact that scripture , as I pointed out in my last post, has no problem authorizing itself and is not dependant on man established councils.

"formal recognitions" for which group of Christians? Eastern? Western? All?

I'll go ahead and consider the Orthodox religions and say the "western" in refferrrence to Rome's possition to the eastern part of the known civilized world at the time.

I promise to anser your other historically ignorant questions in the near future.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

does it really matter?! You're ignoring the fact that scripture , as I pointed out in my last post, has no problem authorizing itself and is not dependant on man established councils.

The decision of what is and is not scripture, at least in the main branches of Chrisianity that survive today, was made by the Council of Nicea. If that's not being dependent on man-established councils, I don't know what is.

 

[Smoke]

The entire doctrine comes from a compendium of scriptures.

Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! NIV

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. NIV

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. NIV

I Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. NIV

II Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. NIV

The problem is that none of those passages support the doctrine of sola scriptura, either individually or taken together. In fact, every single one of them contradicts that doctrine.

1- Sola Scriptura is not a commentary on scripture for scripture's sake but rather a commentary on scrptural authority over human authority despite one's possition due to historical abuses of said authority.

Christian scripture does not stand alone; it wasn't dictated by God or an angel in its present form. You seem to be thinking of the Qur'an. The Christian scriptures were written by humans, transcribed by humans, collected by humans, and canonized by humans, so it's nonsense to speak of scriptural authority as being over human authority. Even if you believe that the canon was established before the historic councils (and I'd like to see some documentation of that claim), there was still a process by which the canon was recognized by humans.

3- The church is the child of the scriptures, not the mother

It may well be that your church is the child of the scriptures. If so, however, your church cannot possibly be the same church as the church that existed in Jerusalem and in many parts of the Roman Empire before all the scriptures had even been written. If your church is the child of the scriptures, it is by definition a different church from the church that produced the scriptures.

But all this is off track. Demonstrate the doctrine of sola scriptura from the scriptures themselves.

 

[Scott1]

No clue about how the country you currently reside was established,eh? At least you can't say your not a part of the majority.

Hmmm.... I wasn't born in this country--- I've only lived in the states for ten years.... don't know what I did to prompt your rudeness..... "historically ignorant questions"??? Wow....... I'm at a loss for words.

I really have no desire to continue our discussion... I'm sorry if something I did prompted your less than charitable reply.

S

 

[Smoke]

Sorry... don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
​

So the question, odd as it may be in this context, is did the Founding Fathers of the United States violate the teaching of this passage of scripture by when they rebelled against their anointed monarch and violated their own oaths of allegiance to him? Of course they did.

The scripture continues:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
​

The teaching is absolutely clear, that the established authorities praise those who do good, and bear the sword against those who do evil. Therefore those who fall afoul of the authorities (like Paul himself) are, by definition, evildoers. I don't believe that myself, but anyone who believed in the infallibility of scripture would have to believe it.

 

[Scott1]

So the question, odd as it may be in this context, is did the Founding Fathers of the United States violate the teaching of this passage of scripture by when they rebelled against their anointed monarch and violated their own oaths of allegiance to him? Of course they did.

Thanks for the explaination.....

I'm not sure how this relates to the OP, but I really couldn't care less about the founding of the US..... as soon as I move home, I plan to burn my passport and never come back.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

The decision of what is and is not scripture, at least in the main branches of Chrisianity that survive today, was made by the Council of Nicea. If that's not being dependent on man-established councils, I don't know what is.

Christian scripture does not stand alone; it wasn't dictated by God or an angel in its present form. You seem to be thinking of the Qur'an. The Christian scriptures were written by humans, transcribed by humans, collected by humans, and canonized by humans, so it's nonsense to speak of scriptural authority as being over human authority. Even if you believe that the canon was established before the historic councils (and I'd like to see some documentation of that claim), there was still a process by which the canon was recognized by humans.

I already addressed this issue in a post previous to the one you are quoting from. From post #20

Cannon was being established long before formal Catholicism existed (1 Pet 3:15-16) and the formal "ecumenical councils" that followed were merely formal recognitions for clarification no more as far as that was concerned.

First off, I need to admit a mistake I made in the Verse I was reffering to. I meant to reffer to 2 Pet. 3:15-16 (NASB) "and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own distruction."
What this verse does, especially from an ironic point of view that catholicism holds, which Scott1 can affirm, that Peter was the first Pope; is give at the very least, the majority of the New Testament, written by Paul, just as much authority as the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, here is a prime example of the Bible authorizing itself despite the Council of Nicea.
You see, 9-10ths_penguin, this is the whole heart of the issue of Sola Scriptura, whether or not Scripture is enough authority on it's own to whether or not there is more needed. The was a major issue among other things when Protestant leaders decided to break away from the Catholic Church to form other denominations. From Sola scriptura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia " The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority and to reject added-on tradition as a source of original authority in addition to the Bible (which did not have any Biblical basis and/or contradicted with Scripture)...
"The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." (Smalcald Article II, 15 - Martin Luther). (See Galatians 1:8).
Oh, and BTW, the Apocrapha was taken out of most major Branches of Christianity's Bible's long after the Council of Nicea even though there are documentaions of even Cardinal's having issues with those books before they were taken out.

It may well be that your church is the child of the scriptures. If so, however, your church cannot possibly be the same church as the church that existed in Jerusalem and in many parts of the Roman Empire before all the scriptures had even been written. If your church is the child of the scriptures, it is by definition a different church from the church that produced the scriptures.

Funny, I got that idea from The Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) (P.80). While, for this particular discussion's sake, this book could be considered a Protestant based book, there is no particular denomination associated with it buyond that.

So the question, odd as it may be in this context, is did the Founding Fathers of the United States violate the teaching of this passage of scripture by when they rebelled against their anointed monarch and violated their own oaths of allegiance to him? Of course they did.




The scripture continues:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.​

The teaching is absolutely clear, that the established authorities praise those who do good, and bear the sword against those who do evil. Therefore those who fall afoul of the authorities (like Paul himself) are, by definition, evildoers. I don't believe that myself, but anyone who believed in the infallibility of scripture would have to believe it.

Can you please show me an instance where Paul did not make himself subject to the governing authorities? do you truly think Paul was knowingly shooting himself in the foot with this scripture and making a "do as I say not as I do" statement(lol)?! (1 Cor. 4:16)

Hmmm.... I wasn't born in this country--- I've only lived in the states for ten years....I'm not sure how this relates to the OP, but I really couldn't care less about the founding of the US..... as soon as I move home, I plan to burn my passport and never come back.

As much as I would love to address the use of the word "only" in this statement, for the sake of sticking to the subject of the thread , I'll leave it alone and only qualify that I used the term that you "reside" here, not that you were born here.
You know as well as I do that this "Sola Scriptura" issue is an issue surrounding the separation of the Protestant Churches from the Catholic Church based on what they believed to be Biblically based reasons (The great reformation). That is why I tried to make a comparrison of the separation of the US from the British empire for what they believed to be Biblically based reasons. I guess I didn't take into account that you are someone who has resided in the US for "only" ten years and can't stand it here. My bad:areyoucra

don't know what I did to prompt your rudeness..... "historically ignorant questions"??? Wow....... I'm at a loss for words.

I really have no desire to continue our discussion... I'm sorry if something I did prompted your less than charitable reply.

I guess I didn't think you would take it so harshly when I considered that you were completely ignoring any point I was trying to make and attempting to engage me in a debate over "dates". How charitable is that? I've always considered engaging in date debates like this to debating over whose dad was older because somehow that made our dads better when we were kids.




P.S. If it weren't for Reformists who believed in the idea of "Sola Scriptura" like Wycliff and WIlliam Tyndale, we'd have to know fluent Latin and be Catholic Priests to be able to be qualified to even have this sort of discussion.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Scott1]

I guess I didn't take into account that you are some who has resided in the US for "only" ten years and can't stand it here. My bad:areyoucra

No problem... I know you have a problem with the "only" ten years... I guess I should have studied more if I knew I was going to stay as long as I did... my bad, I guess.

I guess I didn't think you would take it so harshly when I considered that you were completely ignoring any point I was trying to make and attempting to engage me in a debate over "dates". How charitable is that?

You seemed to have missinterpreted what I was trying to do... instead of assuming .... like you have just done.... I was attempting to get some backround on what you believe.... the dates are relevant (I believe) in the sense that your statements (on the canon being completed before the catholic church was founded and others) needed clarification.... instead of just assuming you were wrong and making a strawman argument, I would have liked to actually know the details of your postition.... but it seems some childhood trauma about the age of your father has prevented you from being able to engage in a simple conversation.... I don't get it, but I don't have a backround in psychology..... so I will just pray for you.

Be well,
Scott

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

You seemed to have missinterpreted what I was trying to do... instead of assuming .... like you have just done.... I was attempting to get some backround on what you believe.... the dates are relevant (I believe) in the sense that your statements (on the canon being completed before the catholic church was founded and others) needed clarification.... instead of just assuming you were wrong and making a strawman argument, I would have liked to actually know the details of your postition.... but it seems some childhood trauma about the age of your father has prevented you from being able to engage in a simple conversation.... I don't get it, but I don't have a backround in psychology..... so I will just pray for you.

LOL, so much for

I really have no desire to continue our discussion

For the third time, I provided a verse of scripture, or at least meant to provide(2 Pet 3:15-16) for my statement

Cannon was being established long before formal Catholicism existed (1 Pet 3:15-16) and the formal "ecumenical councils" that followed were merely formal recognitions for clarification no more as far as that was concerne

(notice that I did not state that it was "completed" but rather "being established". I try to use specific words to avoid such confusions, but I guess my attempt was in vain obviously.) For further explaination and clarification you may want to read the rest of my last post. I Do however appreciate the prayers, I could use some.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Smoke]

I already addressed this issue in a post previous to the one you are quoting from.

Yeah, I read that. There was still a selection process, no matter when it occurred.

Funny, I got that idea from The Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) (P.80). While, for this particular discussion's sake, this book could be considered a Protestant based book, there is no particular denomination associated with it buyond that.

And that's relevant to what? All of the multitude of churches that claim to be based on the Bible are, by definition, different churches from the church that produced the Bible.

Can you please show me an instance where Paul did not make himself subject to the governing authorities? do you truly think Paul was knowingly shooting himself in the foot with this scripture and making a "do as I say not as I do" statement(lol)?! (1 Cor. 4:16)

I didn't say a thing about him making himself subject to the authorities. Paul says:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
​

According to the scriptures, then, only evildoers fall afoul of the authorities. Paul and Jesus were both executed by the authorities; therefore, they were both evildoers.

 

[Smoke]

P.S. If it weren't for Reformists who believed in the idea of "Sola Scriptura" like Wycliff and WIlliam Tyndale, we'd have to know fluent Latin and be Catholic Priests to be able to be qualified to even have this sort of discussion.

Don't be silly. It's never been necessary to know Latin to read the Bible or study theology. There have always been churches outside of Western Europe where Latin wasn't the language of the church.

 

[Dennis1963]

The trinity is not in scripture but Scripture proves it. the word "sola scriptura" is also not in scripture, but if we get away from it, mans doctrines begin. The Bereans had the right Idea, Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. The Bereans were eager to hear the word from Paul, But it had to be compared with Scripture, before they accepted and believed it. Scripture is the touchstone to which all the thoughts, teachings and words of men are to be tried.

I believe Luther said it well:
The sense of Scripture is one and simple, as heavenly truth itself. We enter into it by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and deduce it from the thread and connection of the whole. There is a philosophy enjoined us with respect to the Scriptures given by God; it is to bring to them all the thoughts and maxims of men, as to the touchstone by which these are to be tried."

 

[Scott1]

The trinity is not in scripture but Scripture proves it.

"Prove" is a strong word... if there was "proof" all Christians would be trinitarian and that is surely not the case.... and among those who call themselves trinitarian, there are thousands of opinions about what that means..... and some 30,000 protestant denominations all claiming to have the truth and all from their personal interpretation of the Bible.

the word "sola scriptura" is also not in scripture, but if we get away from it, mans doctrines begin.

Well... it's not in scripture... and IT IS a man made doctrine... an invention that was absent from the Christian faith for 1500 years.... can't get much more man made than that.... you can be sure that the Apostles did not believe in sola scriptura and either did the first or second generations of Christians after the death of Christ. How modern day protestants can justify this belief still boggles my mind.

The Bereans had the right Idea, Acts 17:11

Now this would make sense if protestants actually followed this.... and read THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES..... the fact that this clearly shows Christians of the time preaching the faith WITHOUT reference to the New Testament (as they obviously were not written yet).... one has to totally suspend all reason and intelligence to force the interpretation to mean anything else.... I mean it would be different if there were no references to oral tradition in the Bible, but there obviously were... for a few hundred years, through some of the toughest trials and persectutions the Chruch would ever face, the early Christians managed to preach the Gospel WITHOUT a Bible.

I believe Luther said it well:

Please, don't get me started on Luther.... I can give you a hundred quotes that show how modern protestantism is completely off base from what Luther intended.

I just don't get how people can IGNORE 1500 years of Christian history (well, except the parts they blindly follow like the trinity/bible canon/etc) and this seems logical to them..... in ANY other setting they, I'm sure, would call this behavior idiotic... it would be like trying to understand the Constitution but never reading the writings of anyone from the period...."I don't need to understand Jefferson, Madison, Payne or anything about the colonies.... the Constitution is self-evident."...oh vey!

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I didn't say a thing about him making himself subject to the authorities. Paul says:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
​

According to the scriptures, then, only evildoers fall afoul of the authorities. Paul and Jesus were both executed by the authorities; therefore, they were both evildoers.

You didn't have to, Paul did (Rom. 13:1) "Let everyone be in subjection to the governing authorities..." so until you can prove that what Paul did was "evildoing" or not putting himself into subjection, your point "falls afoul" with the verses you are trying to address. You see, the readers of this letter along with Paul knew that he was writting this letter while under arrest with the Roman government.

And that's relevant to what? All of the multitude of churches that claim to be based on the Bible are, by definition, different churches from the church that produced the Bible.

can you point out where I have disagreed with you on this subject being as how you feel the need to point it out continuously? After that, why don't you do a word search on the word "scriptures" in the NT and find out why and how the word was used.

Yeah, I read that. There was still a selection process, no matter when it occurred.

And how does this disprove "Sola Scriptura" unles it was not based on scripture. Until you can prove otherwise, your point is irrelevant to this discussion.

Don't be silly. It's never been necessary to know Latin to read the Bible or study theology. There have always been churches outside of Western Europe where Latin wasn't the language of the church.

Right, and they had jet airplanes back then to just fly to a country in the east where ofcourse they let anybody and everybody have a Bible back then. all they had to do was learn an eastern language and go to a Bible book store in the far east. BTW, what language are you having this discussion in and what denomination are you claiming to have "borderline" affiliation with?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Smoke]

The trinity is not in scripture but Scripture proves it.

On the contrary, scripture doesn't prove the Trinity at all. The scriptures are sufficiently unclear about the nature of God to allow a wide variety of interpretations, and without any extra-scriptural tradition, it must be conceded that the Trinity is at best a matter of opinion, on which Christians can legitimately differ.

the word "sola scriptura" is also not in scripture,

Not only the phrase is absent from scripture, but also the concept.

but if we get away from it, mans doctrines begin.

Of which sola scriptura is an excellent example.

Right, and they had jet airplanes back then to just fly to a country in the east where ofcourse they let anybody and everybody have a Bible back then. all they had to do was learn an eastern language and go to a Bible book store in the far east.

The Catholic Church never forbade people to read the Bible, and in pre-Reformation England, people who couldn't read Latin were unlikely to be able to read English, either. The Church certainly did try to suppress radical reinterpretations of scripture, as it has historically opposed, and continues to oppose, any challenge to its authority. But it was hardly trying to keep the scriptures a secret.

BTW, what language are you having this discussion in and what denomination are you claiming to have "borderline" affiliation with?

I think that with a little effort you can figure both of those things out for yourself.

 

[Scott1]

Don't be silly. It's never been necessary to know Latin to read the Bible or study theology. There have always been churches outside of Western Europe where Latin wasn't the language of the church.

You've gotta remember that protestants have a pretty biased view of history.... all virtue and common sense go out the window when there is a chance to attack the Catholic Church.

Instead of thanking God that the Catholic Church collected and preserved the books of their bible, and distinguished them from spurious books which might have otherwise found their way into the Bible.... they seem to forget that the different books of the New Testament were for many centuries scattered in the various Christian communities of the Orient. Heck even today there are several different canons of scripture (examples here) and at the time you have to remember that they were written on papyrus which was fragile and breakable... and these books could not be widely circulated and hence were read by a comparatively few groups. It was only in 397 A.D. that the Council of Carthage finally decided which books belong to the Bible, and it was about this time, too, that the books of the Bible were combined into one volume..... but there were still in many different canons and SEVERAL editions that contained books that even protestants would consider gnostic/heretical. By the year 500 there were hundreds of bibles translated into several different languages.... but remember, SEVERAL of these contained heretical books or translations that denied key aspects of the faith.... when about the year 600 the Church proclaimed that all these bibles should be collected and destroyed in favor of the Latin bible which was a translation based upon the best and most historical texts.... the protestants ignore the fact that many of the bibles destroyed were heretical by their own standards and take the opportunity to cry victim of the oppresive Roman Church.... oh well... for those people who can ignore history for the first 200 years of the church, it should not suprise me if they choose to ignore the entire 1500 years before their leaders decided to create their own faith.

Peace be with you,
S

 

[Inky]

for a few hundred years, through some of the toughest trials and persectutions the Chruch would ever face, the early Christians managed to preach the Gospel WITHOUT a Bible.

it would be like trying to understand the Constitution but never reading the writings of anyone from the period...."I don't need to understand Jefferson, Madison, Payne or anything about the colonies.... the Constitution is self-evident."...oh vey!

Two excellent points, especially the first one. A religion that preceded the Bible can't exactly be founded on it.

 

[Dennis1963]

Please, don't get me started on Luther.... I can give you a hundred quotes that show how modern protestantism is completely off base from what Luther intended.

i know what Luther intended to do, matter of fact here is a letter Luther wrote to the Pope, on his promise to Eck.


"Most holy father, - may your Holiness condescend to incline your paternal ear, which is that of Christ Himself, toward your poor sheep, and listen with kindness to his bleating. What shall I do, most Holy Father! I cannot stand against the torrent of your anger, and I know no way of escape. They require of me that I should retract. I would be prompt to do so, if that could lead to the result they desire. But the persecutions of my enemies have spread my writings far and wide, and they are to deeply engraved on the hearts of men to be by possibility erased. A retraction would only still more dishonor the Church of Rome, and call forth from all a cry of accusation against her. Most Holy Father, i declare it in the presence of God, and of all the world, I never have sought, nor will I ever seek, to weaken, by force or artifice, the power of the Roman Church or of your Holiness. I confess that there is nothing in heaven or earth that should be preferred above that Church, save only Jesus Christ the Lord of all.....Luther.

An important truth is that the Reformation was not a mere opposition to the Papacy. It was not a war waged against a certain form or condition of things, neither was it the result of any negative tendencies. As one can see, in the beginning, Luther's heart was still for the Church of Rome and her Pope. Luther did not separate himself from the Church of Rome, but the Church separated herself from Luther.----

Some people I have talked with seem to think Luther separated from the Church because of the Pope, when in fact, at first He loved the Church and the Pope, and had the utmost respect and adoration for her. Luther was a Catholic monk in the truest sense, as many fellow Catholic monks wrote and talked about.


Luther's words in his letter might appear strange, and even reprehensible in him, if we failed to see that the light broke in on him not suddenly, but by slow and progressive degrees. The letter should show evidence "that the Reformation was not a mere opposition to the Papacy. It was not a war waged against a certain form or condition of things, neither was it the result of any negative tendencies."